JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition).
2. We have carefully perused the said order and find no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has held that in view of the provisions of Sections 4 (5) and 4 (6) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as he has not availed of the remedy by way of appeal/ revision.
3. The petitioner has a right of appeal/revision under the U.P. Police Regulations, hence his claim petition has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Shri Sarat Sharma v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, 1996 (14) LCD 279. That decision only says that Section 4 (5) does not create an absolute bar as it uses the word ‘ordinarily’. In our opinion, it was not open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, straightaway before availing of the remedy by way of appeal/revision. The normal rule is that the party must avail the alternative remedy of appeal, revision etc. and only thereafter approach the Tribunal. Only in exceptional circumstances should the Tribunal entertain the claim petition although the alternative remedy has not been availed of. No such exceptional circumstances has been shown in the instant case.
5. The petition is dismissed.
6. However, if the petitioner files an appeal/’revision against the dismissal order, annexing thereto a certified copy of this order, within three weeks from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided preferably within two months from the date of its receipt.